[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sos Children Villages Of India vs The Honourable Minister, Women And ... on 9 April, 2026
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
2026:BHC-AS:18103-DB
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2026.04.17
CHITNIS 18:39:58 +0530 wp.2379.2023-f.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2379 OF 2023
SOS Children Villages of India,
Near Agrasen High School,
Yerawada, Pune 411 006
Through its Village Director
T. Kotreshi, authorised person ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Hon'ble Minister
Women and Children Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Balgram SOS Childrens Village,
Maharashtra, Arjun Building,
4th Floor, Koregaon Road,
Pune 411001.
3. The Hon'ble Dy. Secretary,
Women and Children Development
Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
4. The Commissioner,
Women and Child Development Dept.,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
5. District Women and Child Welfare Officer,
Women and Child Development Department,
Pune.
N. S. Chitnis 1/38
::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 21:30:46 :::
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
6. The District Collector,
Collectorate Office,
Pune 411 001.
7. Abhijit Pratap Pawar,
President of Respondent no.2,
Balgram SOS Childrens Village,
Maharashtra, Arjun Building,
4th Floor, Koregaon Road,
Pune 411001.
8. Mrunalini Abhijit Pawar,
Trustee of Respondent no.2
Balgram SOS Childrens Village,
Maharashtra, Arjun Building,
4th Floor, Koregaon Road,
Pune 411001. ...Respondents
Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kashish Chelani, Mr.
Ranjit Shinde for the Petitioner.
Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar with Ms. Rutuja Bhor, for the Respondent No.2.
Ms. Savita Prabhune, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Gayatri Kale with Mr. Rajendra Anbhule for the Interveners.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 9th APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT (Per Manjusha Deshpande, J.) :
1. The Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 18 th
January 2023, passed by the Minister, Women and Child Development
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
('WCD') Department, thereby setting aside the order dated 20 th
September 2022 passed by the Joint Secretary, Women and Child
Development Department, Maharashtra, granting extension to the
term of Administrator i.e. SOS Children Villages of India i.e. the
Petitioner is cancelled; the license of the respondent No.2-Balgram
SOS Childrens Village is directed to be renewed as per Rules and the
order dated 21st October 2014 passed by the Principal Secretary,
Women and Child Development Department, is partially modified by
granting permission to respondent No.2-Balgram SOS Childrens
Village, Yerwada Maharashtra, to look after the day to day
management of the Child Care Home.
2. The brief facts of the history leading to the order
impugned can be encapsulated as under:
In the year 1974, respondent No.2-Balgram SOS Childrens
Village, Maharashtra was established. The government of Maharashtra
allotted land to the Balgram SOS Childrens Village Trust, for
establishment of Child Development Complex in Survey No.239 at
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
Yerwada, Pune. The institution was granted recognition with an intake
capacity of 200 children for care and protection of the abandoned
and orphaned children under Section 34(3) of Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as "the JJ Act"). On 16th July 2009 the Commissioner,
Women and Child Development Department Pune issued a fresh
certificate of recognition to the institution under Section 34(3) of JJ
Act, 2006. The petitioner-organisation is an NGO recognised by the
Ministry of Women and Child Development Department engaged in
conducting child care programmes for the orphaned and abandoned
children. These children are brought up in a family like environment,
with care which is termed as a "Village". The petitioner institution has
32 villages in 22 States across the country.
On this background the petitioner started working in
partnership with Balgram SOS Childrens Village (respondent No.2)
from 1979, and was also funding its programmes. The respondent
No.2 is an affiliate of the petitioner-organisation. Two serious incidents
occurred in the respondent No.2-institution, one in respect of a six
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
year old girl who was sexually abused by a fourteen year old boy from
the same institution on 4th February 2013. Subsequent thereto, again a
serious incident of sudden death of one inmate viz. Kalyani Anil Gite,
a seven year old girl occurred on 2nd August 2013. Owing to the
occurrence of the serious incidents in respondent No.2-institution its
license was cancelled vide order dated 6 th January 2014, by the
Commissioner, Women and Child Development Department, Pune,
Maharashtra State. Being aggrieved by the said order the respondent
No.2 filed Writ Petition No.1084 of 2014, which was withdrawn with
liberty to file Appeal before the State Government. The Appeal filed
before the State Government was allowed by the Principal Secretary,
Women and Child Development Department vide order dated 21 st
October 2014, thereby the recognition of respondent No.2 is restored.
By the same order the petitioner was appointed as an Administrator
over the respondent No.2 to look after its day to day administration
for a period of five years, and the respondent No.2 is restrained from
taking part in its day to day administration. The tenure of the
petitioner has been extended by the government from time to time.
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
The respondent No.2 challenged the order dated 20 th
September 2022 passed by the Joint Secretary, WCD Department,
extending tenure of petitioner as Administrator before the Minister of
WDC Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. After hearing the respective
parties the Hon'ble Minister has passed the order dated 18 th January
2023, which is received by the petitioner on 21 st January 2023. Thus,
being aggrieved by the order dated 18 th January 2023, passed by the
Minister the petitioner has approached this Court seeking following
reliefs:-
[A] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or
order, thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned
order dtd 18.1.2023 passed by the respondent no.1;
[B] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or
order thereby restraining the respondents from taking any
action in furtherance of the impugned order and the
adminstratorship of the petitioner be continued till disposal
of the present petition;
[C] During the pendency of this petition, if the impugned order
is executed by taking management control alongwith actual
and physical possession of the Yerawada, Pune unit and by
removing the Administratorship of the petitioner, the same
be directed to be restored to the petitioner;
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
[D] The respondent nos3,4 and 5 be directed to admit children
to the petitioner institution during pendency of this
petition;
[E] That pending hearing and final disposal of this petition,
interim stay be granted in terms of prayer cl. [a][b] and [c]
and [d] above;
[F] Ad interim relief in terms of prayer cl.[a], [b] and [c]be
granted;
[G] The Respondent nos 3,4,5 be directed to consider the
request of the petitioner to grant permanent
Administratorship permanent to Yerawada, Pune unit, to
the petitioner institution;
[H] The Respondent no.6 Collector be directed to consider the
request of the petitioner for granting lease of the Yerawada
Unit land in its favour forthwith."
3. We have heard elaborate submissions of Mr. Anturkar,
Senior counsel for petitioner on the previous date of hearing, as
recorded in our order dated 18th March 2026. According to him the
impugned order dated 18th January 2023 passed by the Minister
reviews the order passed by the Principal Secretary WCD Department
dated 21st October 2014. He submitted that there is no provision of
review under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Amendment Act. He would submit that neither JJ Act, 2000 nor JJ Act,
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
2015 provides any statutory mechanism for Appeal or Review against
cancellation of license. Thus according to him, the order directing to
renew the license of the respondent No.2 is beyond the powers of the
Minister, WCD Department since the license of the respondent No.2
was already cancelled by the Commissioner, WCD Department vide
order dated 6th January 2014.
This order of 6th January 2014 is modified vide order
dated 21st October 2014. The order of cancellation of license of
respondent No.2 dated 6th January 2014, has not been set aside, it is
modified by restoring the final recognition granted to respondent
No.2, dated 22nd August 2014. He would therefore submit that in
absence of any statutory provision the order cancelling the license of
respondent No.2, could not have been reviewed, since it is a settled
position of law that, powers of review are not inherent, there has to be
an enabling provision in the statute. The authority can either grant or
cancel the license, there cannot be any review of such order.
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
4. He further submitted that considering that the license of
respondent No.2, was revoked on account of the serious incidents in
the institution, resulting into the order directing students to be
transferred to alternate institution pending further determination, in
view of the distinct model and the expertise of the petitioner in the
field, the petitioner has been appointed as an Administrator initially
for a period of five years. This order of Administratorship was
extended from time to time, as respondent No.2 was not holding a
valid lease of the land, The Lease Agreement of the land where the
institution is located had expired and the proposal submitted by the
Commissioner, WCD Department to the Collector, Pune was still
pending.
5. The tenure of the Petitioner as Administrator has been
continued from time to time, particularly in view of the fact that, the
respondent No.2 is not holding a valid license as per the statutory
requirement of JJ Act, 2015. The JJ Act, 2000 stood repealed upon
coming into force of JJ 2015, as a result of which the Child Care
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
Homes are now governed exclusively by Section 41 of the JJ Act,
2015. This Act of 2015, has come into force with effect from 15 th
January 2016.
6. In view of the provisions of the new enactment, the
respondent No.2 was required to apply for a new license in accordance
with Section 41 of the Act. It is submitted that assuming that the
respondent No.2 was holding a valid registration in 2014 under the
old Act, by virtue of proviso to Section 41(1) of JJ Act of 2015, even if
it is deemed to be a valid registration, this registration is valid for only
period of five years and it is required to be renewed every five years. It
is further submitted that Rule 22(1)(b) of the Maharashtra State
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2018 (for
short 'Rules of 2018'), requires renewal of the existing license within
one year from the coming into force of the Rules i.e. by 13 th March
2018. The application submitted by respondent No.2 in the year 2018,
is not in the prescribed format of Form 27 as provided in Rule 22(2)
and Rule 23(2) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2018.
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
7. The learned Senior counsel, has drawn our attention to the
communication dated 20th January 2026, addressed to the respondent
No.2 by the District Women and Child Development Officer, Pune to
submit that, the proposal of the application for renewal of license
made by the respondent No.2, has already been returned. As such no
proposal for renewal of license of the respondent No.2 is pending. The
registration of respondent No.2-institution under the old Act has
lapsed automatically by operation of law, which is necessary to be
renewed under the new enactment. Since respondent No.2 has failed
to get itself registered under the provisions of the Act of 2015, the
order directing renewal of its license does not hold good. The renewal
of a license can happen only when there is a valid existing license held
by an institution. As on date the respondent No.2 does not hold any
valid license, hence, the order directing its renewal is of no
consequence and thus, is not a valid order. In absence of a valid
license the respondent No.2 is ineligible to run the Child Care Home,
on this ground also the order impugned requires interference by this
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
Court.
In addition it is urged that order passed by the Minister
directing to renew the license is totally mechanical order without
taking into consideration the provisions of law and ignoring the
incidents that have occurred within the Child Care Home. The order
restoring the management of the respondent No.2 for day to day
administration is without verifying, whether it is safe, secure and
reliable to hand over the children to the respondent No.2, in view of
its previous record without ascertaining, whether any adequate
measures have been taken by the respondent No.2, to ensure the safety
and wellbeing of the children, failure to conduct any such enquiry
about removal of deficiencies by the respondent No.2 before passing
the order impugned makes the impugned order arbitrary, irrational
and contrary to the object of the JJ Act, 2015.
8. Mr. Anturkar, further submitted that, the Government is
empowered to cancel or withdraw the registration of erring
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
institutions who fail to comply with the prescribed standards. Upon
cancellation of any license, the Government itself is obligated to
manage the institution as per Section 41(7) of the JJ Act, 2015.
Similarly, Rule 22(7) of Rules of 2018, mandates that if an institution
has failed to apply for registration within the time frame laid down in
the Act, or has not been granted provisional registration such
institution shall either be managed by the State Government or the
Children shall be transferred to some other institution, which is
registered under the Act of 2015. This statutory scheme mandates that
the Children shall be admitted only in registered institution, this aspect
has been totally ignored by the Minister in the impugned order dated
18th January 2021.
Relying on the judicial pronouncement of this Court in the
case of Jai Sevalal Sevabhavi Sanstha, v/s State of Maharashtra1 , it is
submitted that in this judgment it is categorically held that, the
institutions having valid registration under the Act of 2000, are
deemed to be registered under the Act of 2015, but it is necessary for
them to apply for renewal of registration within one year from the
1 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 11631
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
enforcement of the Rules of 2018. Thus, applying the said ratio, the
respondent No.2 institution having failed to register itself under the
Act of 2015, and Rules of 2018, the order impugned, restoring the
management of the respondent No.2 is contrary to the provisions of JJ
Act, 2015.
He further submitted that even otherwise, the respondent
No.2, has adopted the model of the petitioner-organisation, which is
unique and different from the other Child Care Homes, and is also
substantially funded by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is in a
better position to continue with the administration. The petitioner has
satisfactorily worked as Administrator and looked after the well being
of the children competently without any report of untoward incident
during its tenure. He would therefore urge that, in view of the total
go by given to the statutory provision, various infirmities and
procedural irregularities in the impugned order, the order passed by
the Minister is required to be quashed and set aside by continuing the
petitioner as Administrator. During the course of argument the
learned senior counsel submitted that, even if the petitioner is not
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
continued as an Administrator some other eligible institute is required
to be appointed for the smooth functioning of the Child Care Home,
in the interest and welfare of the Children.
9. Per Contra Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-Balgram SOS Childrens Village, Pune, the contesting
respondent submitted that, the respondent No.2 has been granted
recognition and registration certificate under Section 34(3) of the JJ
Act, 2006 on 16th July 2009. Although the Commissioner, WDC,
Pune, has withdrawn the recognition and the license granted in favour
of the respondent No.2 vide order dated 6 th January 2014, the
Principal Secretary, WCD Department has restored the certificate of
recognition vide order dated 21st October 2014. However, by the same
order the petitioner is appointed as Administrator for managing the
Child Care Home, for a period of five years till September 2019. In
the year 2019, the respondent No.2 had already filed application for
seeking renewal of its license under the JJ Act, 2015. He submitted
that although he had addressed several communications to the
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
respondent-authorities requesting restoration of the administration of
the Child Care Home, the Deputy Secretary, WCD Department
extended the tenure of the petitioner as Administrator initially for a
period of six months, which was further extended by the Officer,
WCD Department, until further orders vide order dated 21 st October
2020. When this order of 21st October 2020 was challenged in Writ
Petition No.3124 of 2022, by respondent No.2, the matter was
remanded to the Deputy Secretary, WCD Department to hear the
respondent No.2 and take a fresh decision about continuation of the
petitioner as an Administrator. Unfortunately the grievance of the
respondent No.2 was not redressed by the Deputy Secretary, WCD
Department on the contrary the term of the petitioner as an
Administrator was extended for a further period of one year vide order
dated 20th September 2022. Being aggrieved by this order dated 20 th
September 2022, the respondent No.2 has preferred a representation
before the Minister, WCD Department, which is decided vide order
dated 18th January 2023, by setting aside the order dated 20 th
September 2022, and granting the respondent No.2 permission for
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
administration and day to day management of the said Child Care
Home along with directions to renew its license as per Rules.
He submitted that this order directing renewal of its license
is perfectly in consonance with the Rules and Regulations. In response
to the various objections raised by the petitioner to the impugned
order, he submitted that at the outset he would like to point out that,
the lease of the land on which the respondent No.2, is presently
running the Child Care Home, has been renewed from 30 th September
2025 to 29th May 2055 i.e. for a period of 30 years. Thus, there is no
impediment to conduct the affairs of the Child Care Home on the said
land. Upon passing of order of renewal of lease by the Collector, vide
order dated 30th September 2025, the respondent No.2 has already
paid the lease amount.
So far as the status of application of the respondent No.2
for renewal of its license is concerned, the application has been
returned by the Officer of WCD Department, without assigning any
reasons. The respondent No.2 has taken concrete corrective measures
after the two serious incidents which includes providing separate
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
facilities for girls and boys; initiation of criminal proceedings against
the responsible persons; replacement of entire set of employees; the
board of trustees have been replaced completely. Even the
recommendations of the Committee chaired by former Judges have
been fully implemented. Only after appreciating the corrective
measures taken by the respondent No.2, the order has been passed by
the Hon'ble Minister and the respondent No.2 has already taken over
the day to day administration of the Child Care Home. Since taking
over the charge not a single untoward incident is reported.
In response to the allegations of maladministration and the
irregularities committed by respondent No.2, he submitted that
respondent No.2 is not accountable for the unfortunate incidents
leading to cancellation of its registration. These incidents have
occurred when the Village Director and Project In-charge appointed by
the petitioner was heading the facility center. According to him, as per
the Memorandum of Understanding between the petitioner and the
respondent No.2, more particularly Clause - 3 of the Memorandum of
Agreement, provides that the Village Director and Project In-charge for
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
respondent No.2-Balgram SOS Childrens Village, is appointed by
petitioner itself. Thus, it is not appropriate to hold the respondent
No.2 responsible for the two untoward incidents occurred in the
institution. One of the reasons that is attributed to the incident of
sexual abuse reported between the two children is, keeping of girls and
boys together. It is submitted that this pattern of keeping them
together is adopted as per the Model prepared and followed by the
petitioner. However, pursuant to the incident the respondent No.2 has
taken corrective measures.
He further submitted that, as regards the right of the
petitioner to continue as an Administrator is concerned, the
appointment of an Administrator is a temporary arrangement due to
the prevailing circumstances at that particular time, continuation of
which cannot be claimed as of right. He submitted that, vide order
dated 21st October 2014, passed by the Principal Secretary, WCD
Department, the registration certificate of respondent No.2 is restored.
By the same order, the petitioner was appointed as Administrator for
five years. During this period, the respondent No.2 has removed the
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
deficiencies and ensured compliance of regulatory measures within the
frame work of JJ Act, 2006. It has also complied with all the directions
and has taken necessary corrective measures to ensure proper
functioning of Child Care Home. Inspite of long tenure of eight years
as Administrator, the petitioner still wants to continue with the same
arrangement, which is not supported by any legal provision.
In the impugned order, challenge is raised to the order
passed by the Deputy Secretary, WCD Department granting the
petitioner further extension for a period of one year. The petitioner as
an Administrator does not have any statutory right to continue for
years together. The order impugned is passed after granting
opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The Hon'ble Minister being
the head of the department is fully competent to examine the legality
and proprietory of the order passed by the subordinate authority.
As regards the objection of the petitioner about powers of
review it is submitted that the appointment of the petitioner itself is
passed by reviewing the earlier order passed by the Minister, WCD
Department, on 27th May 2014. Therefore, the petitioner in a way is
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
raising challenge to the order, which appoints him as an
Administrator. Hence, in view of the fact that the order passed by the
Minister, WCD Department, is already implemented by taking over
the charge of the Child Care Home, nothing survives for consideration
in this writ petition, hence it deserves to be dismissed.
10. The learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondent No.1, 3 to 5
submitted that by order dated 6th January 2014, the recognition and
registration certificate of respondent No.2 has been cancelled. The
Revision Petition filed by the respondent No.2, has been partly allowed
on 21st October 2014, by restoring the registration of respondent
No.2. So far as the order dated 21 st October 2014, is concerned it is
submitted that the respondent No.1 has held that after restoring the
registration certificate of the respondent No.2 there is no provision to
extend the period of Administrator. In view of Section 41(7) of the JJ
Act, 2015, if the State Government withholds registration of any
institution, only the State Government can work as an Administrator
for that period. In view of the statutory framework, the petitioner
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
cannot claim continuation of its tenure as an Administrator for the
Child Care Home. Pursuant to the impugned order dated 18 th January
2023, directing the renewal of license of respondent No.2, the State
Government has directed respondent No.4 to submit the proposal of
respondent No.2 for recognition and registration. Accordingly, the
respondent No.2 has submitted it which is pending for consideration
and appropriate decision of the Government.
It is further submitted that, the order dated 18 th January
2023, is already implemented on 6th February 2023, the present
petitioner has handed over the management and control with actual
physical possession of the Child Care Home, to the respondent No.2
on 6th February 2023 itself. Since then, the Child Care Home at
Yerwada Pune, is being run by the respondent No.2 in accordance with
the Rules and Regulations of the JJ Act, 2015.
Appraising this Court about the present status of the
respondent No.2-institution it is submitted that, in the month of May
2024, the total number of children in respondent No.2-institution is
101. The respondent No.2 has provided educational and vocational
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
courses to the admitted Children. The respondent No.2 has already
taken over the charge of the Child Care Home and provided all
facilities. In view thereof, the interim relief as prayed during the
admission of the matter, has been rejected by this Court. Even
otherwise, the petitioner-institution does not hold a registration
certificate for running a Child Care Home. Thus the petitioner is not
eligible to conduct and manage the Child Care Home as per the
provisions of JJ Act, 2015. Hence, the writ petition sans merit and
deserves to be dismissed.
11. We have heard the respective counsel at length and perused
the documents placed on record. The chronology of the events as
pleaded by both the parties can be summarized as under:-
(1) The respondent No.2 is registered for the purpose of
establishing full fledged Child Development Complex and has been
awarded land admeasuring 9 acres 14 gunthas vide order dated
28th December 1977.
(2) In the year 1997 grant is sanctioned to the respondent
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
No.2 with intake of 200 children. In accordance with Section
34(3) of the JJ Act, 2006 a fresh registration certificate was issued
on 16th July 2009.
(3) After the two serious incidents of 4 th February 2013 and
2nd August 2013, the registration of the respondent No.2 was
cancelled vide order dated 6th January 2014, against which Appeal
was filed before the Minister, WCD Department and after hearing
the parties, the Minister has passed an order on 27th May 2014,
confirming the order of the Commissioner, WCD Department,
cancelling the license of the respondent No.2. Further directions
are issued to transfer the children in the Child Care Home
elsewhere. It is directed that after examining whether the property
of respondent No.2 can be seized by the Government, if possible
Administrator should be appointed, and the children should be
returned to the Child Care Home, but in no case children should
be given in custody of respondent No.2.
(4) Against the order of the Minister, dated 27 th May 2014 the
respondent No.2 filed a Review Petition and upon hearing the
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
parties the Review is allowed, the earlier letter of the Government
dated 22nd August 2014 is amended. The recognition issued by the
Commissioner, WCD Department to the respondent No.2 is
restored. However, it is directed that, the petitioner will appoint an
Administrator over Balgram SOS Childrens Village, Pune for next
five years for its day to day administration. This order is passed on
21st October 2014.
(5) The petitioner continued as Administrator for a period of
five years and thereafter was continued for further six months as
recommended by Commissioner of WCD Department vide order
dated 10th December 2019.
(6) Being aggrieved by the order granting extension without
giving hearing to the respondent No.2, Writ Petition No.3124 of
2022 was preferred, wherein directions are given by this Court to
decide the order of continuation of Administrator after affording
an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.2. Accordingly, the
parties appeared before the Joint Secretary, WCD Department,
Mumbai, who after the hearing the parties, granted further
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
extension of period of one year, vide order dated 20 th September
2022.
(7) The respondent No.2 again approached this Court in Writ
Petition No.14856 of 2022, against the order of 20 th September
2022 however, during the pendency of the writ petition, it came to
be withdrawn on the ground that the parties have approached the
Minister, WCD Department.
(8) The Minister, after hearing the respective parties has
passed an order on 18th January 2023, thereby the order dated 20 th
September 2022 passed by the Joint Secretary, WCD Department,
Maharashtra extending the tenure of Administrator has been
quashed and directions are issued to renew the license of the
respondent No.2 as per Rules. Simultaneously, the order dated 21 st
October 2014, passed by the Principal Secretary, WCD
Department has been modified and the respondent No.2 is
permitted to conduct the day to day administration of Child Care
Home.
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
(9) This order passed by the Minister, WCD Department is
assailed by the petitioner on the following grounds:-
a. The Minister has committed an error by modifying the
order passed by the Principal Secretary, WCD Department dated
21st October 2014, since it amounts to Review.
b. The order directing to 'Renewal' of license of the
respondent No.2 is not tenable and contrary to the Rules, since
the respondent No.2 is not holding a valid license, after coming
into force of the JJ Act of 2015 and Rules of 2018, thus the
order of 'renewal' is not enforceable.
c. In view of the serious irregularities committed by the
respondent No.2, which has resulted in serious legal
consequences of cancellation of its license, the learned Minister
has committed a grave error by passing impugned order, without
verifying whether the respondent No.2 has taken corrective
measures and is competent to, again undertake the day to day
administration of Child Care Home.
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
12. Though contentious issues are raised by the petitioner at
the threshold itself, we will have to examine whether the petitioner has
a locus to challenge the impugned order and whether it has any right
to continue as an Administrator. It is the settled position of law that
appointment of an Administrator is a stop gap arrangement, which
cannot be continued in perpetuity. Similarly, there is no vested right in
an Administrator to seek continuation of his tenure. The
maintainability of the writ petition will also have to be assessed in
context with the right asserted by the petitioner. The jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be
invoked only for enforcement of legal rights. Since the petitioner has
failed to establish existence of any legal and enforceable right to
continue as an Administrator in his favour, the invocation of writ
jurisdiction becomes unsustainable.
13. The other impediment in granting the prayer of the
petitioner is that Section 41 of the JJ Act 2015, mandates Child Care
Homes should be registered under the Act. If they hold a valid
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
registration under the JJ Act, 2000, on the date of commencement of
the Act of 2015, they are deemed to be registered under this Act.
Admittedly, the petitioner has not come with a case that it holds any
registration, under either of the enactments. The State authorities in
their affidavit also have specifically raised objection in this regard,
opposing continuation of the petitioner as Administrator, since it does
not hold a valid registration. Thus, we do not find any merit in the
prayer of the petitioner seeking restoration of its appointment as
Administrator by removing the respondent No.2 who has already
taken charge upon passing of the order impugned.
14. The petitioner's other ground of challenge to the
impugned order is about, the power of the Minister to modify the
order passed by the Principal Secretary, WCD Department dated 21 st
October 2014, on the ground that it amounts to reviewing the order
of Principal Secretary. According to the petitioner the powers of
review not being inherent, but conferred by statue, the impugned
order is not maintainable.
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
15. Assuming without admitting that, no such powers of
Review vests in the Minister, it needs to be appreciated that, even the
order appointing the petitioner as an 'Administrator', issued by the
Principal Secretary, WCD Department, vide order dated 21 st October
2014 is passed in exercise of the powers of Review. Upon perusal of
order dated 21st October 2014, it reveals that an order is passed by the
Minister, WCD Department, on 27th May 2014, which is reproduced
in the order, confirms the order of cancellation of license of
respondent No.2, passed by the Commissioner, WCD Department,
dated 6th January 2014, with a direction to transfer the children to
other institution, and recommends appointment of Administrator. This
decision was conveyed to the Commissioner, WCD Department, Pune
vide communication dated 22nd August 2014, to take further steps and
submit a compliance report. When a Review of the order passed by the
Minister, is filed by the respondent No.2, during the hearing it was
brought to the notice of the Principal Secretary, WCD Department,
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
that, in case the recognition of the respondent No.2, is cancelled, it
will require relocation of the Children, and appointment of
Administrator would not be possible. Similarly the land leased to the
respondent No.2 for the Child Care Home will revert back to the
Revenue Department.
Upon realising the practical difficulties in implementing the
order dated 27th May 2014, passed by the Minister, the Review
Petition is allowed, by restoring the recognition of respondent No.2,
and appointing the petitioner as an Administrator.
If we accept the submission of the petitioner, the very
appointment of petitioner as an Administrator, would not be
maintainable. If the initial appointment itself is without powers, the
subsequent orders granting continuation would also becomes
unsustainable. In the result, this objection of the petitioner cannot be
sustained.
16. The learned Minister, while passing the impugned order
has, observed that, there is no provision in the Act to extend the tenure
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
of Administrator. It needs to be appreciated that basically the challenge
before the Minister was the extension of tenure of the petitioner as an
Administrator, granted vide order dated 20 th September 2022. The
Minister while deciding the issue of extension has held that, there
cannot be extension for the tenure of the Administrator. Relying on
Section 41(7) of the JJ Act, 2015, it is held that Administrator can
manage only until such time the registration of the institution is
renewed and it is only the State Government who can manage the
institution till such period.
In view of the restoration of recognition of the institution
vide order dated 21st October 2014 the respondent No.2 had filed
application under the new enactment for renewal of its license. It was
recorded by the Minister that the term of Administrator of five years
had already expired in 2019, thereafter the petitioner had continued
for a further period of three years by issuing orders from time to time.
However, according to him, once having restored the recognition of
the petitioner there is no provision in the Act to continue the
Administrator. It is therefore held that, in absence of a statutory
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
provision in the Act for continuation of the Administrator, the order
passed by the Joint Secretary, WCD Department, dated 20 th September
2022 is not a valid order.
Section 41(7) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Act),
2015 is reproduced hereunder, which reads thus:-
"41.
(7) The State Government may, after following the procedure as
may be prescribed, cancel or withhold registration, as the case may be, of
such institutions which fail to provide rehabilitation and reintegration
services as specified in section 53 and till such time that the registration
of an institution is renewed or granted, the State Government shall
manage the institution."
Upon careful reading of the aforesaid provision it is
evident that the appointment of an Administrator is a temporary and
regulatory measure intended to ensure the proper management of the
institution, till the original management can again take over by
removing the deficiencies. If we accept the contention of the
petitioner, it would result in converting a temporary arrangement into
a continued situational arrangement which is not contemplated under
the provisions of the Act. Even otherwise, the appointment of an
Administrator under any enactment is for a limited period and it
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
cannot be extended beyond a particular period, therefore, we do not
find any error committed by the learned Minister while refusing to
continue the petitioner as an Administrator.
As a result of setting aside of the order dated 20 th
September 2022 the question of administration of the Child Care
Home would have arisen, considering that the recognition of
respondent No.2 is restored, and it was also demonstrated before the
Minister that, the respondent No.2 has taken corrective measures after
the two serious incidents in 2013. The respondent No.2 has fully
implemented the recommendations made by the Committee chaired by
the former Judges; Criminal proceedings were initiated against the
erring responsible persons; entire set of employees was replaced and
the board of trustees is replaced. They have also segregated girls and
boys by providing separate facilities. Coupled with the fact that the
unique concept of the petitioner-NGO, is adopted by the respondent
No.2, which no other institution is capable of implementing, hence,
the order directing to restore the day to day administration to the
respondent No.2 is passed.
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
Considering that the application for renewal of license of
respondent No.2 was already made and pending at that point of time,
alongwith its previous experience to conduct the affairs of Child Care
Home on the model of petitioner, the learned Minister has passed the
order in the interest of the children in Child Care Home, which cannot
be faulted.
Even though we have refused to entertain the challenge of
the petitioner on the ground of locus, some additional factors, also
disentitle the petitioner of the relief. Though the petitioner is raising
challenge to the powers of the Minister, WCD Department to pass the
impugned order, the petitioner has not raised any such objection
before the Minister, inspite of participating in the proceedings before
him. In fact upon perusal of the contents of impugned order, it is
evident that, the petitioner seems to be more interested in the land in
Pune, for conducting the activities of its organisation, the stand of the
petitioner in its own words recorded in the order is as follows:-
"4) As stated by Mr. T Kotresh, representative of
SOS Children's Villages, India, Pune, in the oral
argument, we require premises of Pune to conduct
programs for the children of the applicant organization
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
at Yerwada Pune. Also, they stated at the hearing that
apart from our written statement, we do not want to say
anything more. Also, no legal comment was made on the
validity of the appointment of an administrator."
As regards the responsibility of the two serious incidents of
death, and sexual abuse of children in the Child Care Home during
2013, is concerned, on going through the Memorandum of
Understanding between the petitioner and respondent No.2 dated 27 th
April 2004, we find substance to some extent in the contention of the
respondent No.2. According to Clause - 3 of the Agreement the
petitioner is empowered to recruit and appoint the Village Director
and Project In-charge for the SOS Children Villages of India, Pune.
Their service conditions are governed by Service Rules of the
Petitioner-organisation. The day to day matters are reported to the
President of Balgram Maharashtra, but its ultimate reporting and
supervising authority is vested in the National Director, SOS India.
Thus the In-charge of Child Care Home, when the incidents of 2013
occurred the Officer, appointed by petitioner was looking after
administration and reporting to the petitioner. From reading of the
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
above clause, it appears that, the respondent No.2 alone could not
have been held responsible for the incidents. In view of the above
observations the balance does not tilt in favour of the petitioner.
Even though we are not inclined to entertain the challenge
to the order passed by the Minister, the other ground raised by the
petitioner about the failure of the respondent No.2 to renew its license
and its ineligibility to run the Child Care Home, in our view cannot
be ignored. Admittedly, the respondent No.2 as on date only holds
recognition, its proposal for renewal of license appears to have been
returned, with a rider to resubmit it, as and when directed by
Government. The reason for return of proposal is not disclosed in the
communication dated 20th January 2026. Functioning of Child Care
Home, requires registration under the JJ Act, 2015, as on date the
respondent No.2 does not hold any license. However, considering the
fact that, the respondent No.2 has already taken over the
administration of the Child Care Home pursuant to the impugned
order dated 18th January 2023, on 6th February 2023, hence we do not
wp.2379.2023-f.doc
intend to disturb the arrangement which is in place for so long and
thereby disturb the children in the Child Care Home abruptly.
However it needs to be ensured that the Child Care Home is run by a
registered institution as contemplated under the JJ Act 2015, thus in
order to subserve the interest of justice, we direct the Competent
Authority under the JJ Act 2015, to decide the application for renewal
of license of the respondent No.2, on its own merits, in accordance
with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
